The court emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires proof of reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend, especially in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent, i.e. Union of India, represented by the Directorate GAHC010262242023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4258/2023 JITUL ALI S/O YASIN ALI, VILL.- JAIGURU AMINGAON, P.O.- AMINGAON, P.S.- CHANGSARI, DIST.- KAMRUP (ASSAM), PIN- 781031. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 26.06.2024 Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent, i.e. Union of India, represented by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

2) By this application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, Jitul Ali, who is in custody since his arrest on 20.12.2022 in connection with NCB Crime No. 24/2022, has prayed for bail. The petitioner is being tried before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in connection with NDPS Case No. 23/2023, registered under sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(C), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3) This application is the second bail application by the petitioner. The previous bail application being B.A. No. 1519/2023 was closed by this Court by granting liberty to the petitioner to move the concerned jurisdictional Court for bail in the said case.

4) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that till today i.e. 26.06.2024, the petitioner has been in custody for 554 days. It was also submitted that till date only 2 (two) prosecution witness have been examined, cross-examined and discharged. Hence, it is submitted that there is no possibility of an early conclusion of trial.

5) It is submitted that delay in trial has infringed the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that existence of such a right has been accepted by the Supreme Court of India as well as by this Court. It was further submitted that on the ground that there is no sign of early trial, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has released under-trial prisoners considering the length of their detention. It was also submitted that even the Supreme Court of India had deprecated the long incarceration of under-trial prisoners for a long time and that on the ground that the right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated and thus, the petitioner has become entitled to be released on bail

6) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no drugs was seized from the conscious possession of the petitioner, nor he is the owner of the house.

7) It has been submitted that the petitioner and his family members have movable and immovable property and therefore, there is no chance of absconding. Moreover, it was submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed on grant of bail.

8) In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited the following decisions of the Supreme Court of India, viz.,

(i) Shariful Islam @ Sarif v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) 4173/2022 decided by 2-Judge Bench on 04.08.2022, (ii) Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) 5769/2022, decided by 2-Judge Bench on 01.08.2022.

9) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondent has opposed this application and by referring to the scanned copy of the relevant pages of the TCR, the materials available against the petitioner has been highlighted.

10) From the materials available on record, it is seen that on 17.12.2022, information was received in the office of the respondent that one Jitul Ali, the owner of House No. B/71, Railway Eas